Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shayuri" data-source="post: 5564188" data-attributes="member: 4936">I'm not going to say you're wrong, because you're clearly writing from your experiences. Your experiences and mine don't seem to match...but that's to be expected. If they did, you'd be me...or I'd be you...or something equally disturbing.I do want to offer some ideas that, well, one hates to use the word 'rebut,' but perhaps that reflect a different gaming experience and could mitigate some of the factors you speak of.The Game Itself Is Too Complex: This complaint strikes me as being tied to the 'short-timer' complaint, for one reason; learning curve. There's a counterforce to complexity, basically, when gaming, and that is that we learn the rules as we go...eventually reaching a point where we're familiar enough with them that game action isn't necessarily impeded overmuch by using them rigorously. My example for this is back when I first started tabletop gaming with GURPS. GURPS is a complex system. There are a ton of modifiers to keep track of for nearly any roll. However, three or four months in, I was familiar enough with my character, his equipment, and the game, that I didn't need to look up tables to know that if I fired my blaster rifle at a target 100 yards away, targeting his leg, that my effective skill was 12. My experiences with D&D have been similar. The rules can be complicated, but eventually we learn them. At that point the rulebooks become reference material; not necessary for every action.Now one can certainly argue that the learning curve of games is too steep...I don't know that I agree, but there's definitely a point of contention to be made there. But I don't think it's accurate to say that the longer a group plays, the longer it takes to play. Yes, complexity increases, but so does a group's proficiency with the system.Parties Become Interdependent: Hee...I have to admit...I actually think this is a GOOD thing in some ways. I get what you're saying though, I do. If you're in the Tomb of Horrors and Chucky the Rogue can't make it to the session, you probably don't want to try it without him. I just don't see that as being a systemic problem with the game though. Heck, can someone else play him for the night? Can the GM NPC him? It wouldn't make any narrative sense for him to just vanish anyway, would it?Well, in the Tomb of Horrors it might.I think you and I may attribute party interdependency on different things, which may account for our different viewpoints on it. You seem to view it as a natural process of optimization...a group of people specializing into roles so that the group is more capable than the sum of its parts. There's that element to it perhaps, but I think people specialize because of a much simpler urge:People want to shine.If I swing a sword, I want to be THE GUY WHO SWINGS A SWORD. No one should be better at swinging a sword than me, except perhaps my nemesis enemy NPC, who loves to show me up. That's the essence of playing a character in heroic fantasy. You're the best at what you do (or the best in potentia, if low level). You have a niche, and it's yours. Oh, you may not stand in the spotlight when a bat swarm descends upon you, or when a guard must be snuck past and a jail cell unlocked, but you're okay with that because you know soon it will be time to swing swords again, and you rule at that.The concept of role protection is really strong in every game I've played. During character creation the question I see most is, "I'd like to play a wizard (or whatever), does anyone else want that?" Party needs DO shape these choices, but I think it's because party needs define which choices will have the chance to shine, not because everyone making characters is trying to come up with a combination of classes that will make the party as number-crunched effective as can be made.And, as a postscript, I think it's good that games encourage people to talk to each other and think about their choices in context with the choices of others, and shows the advantages possible from doing so. I think that outweighs, in my mind, any potential negative issues arising from a well-integrated party's mutual dependence on each other.Short-timers are discouraged: This strikes me as a problem with a group more than a problem with a system. A good group that makes people feel welcome will help the newcomer along. The GM might use email or online communication to help him or her get their character ready before game night. They won't expect system proficiency at first, and will be ready to help with the inevitable stumbles.GM aspirations exceed their abilities: Also a group issue, not systemic. But this is also how GM's learn their trade. You don't know the limit of your ability until you test it. Plot replaces Story: This ties directly in with the previous complaint. Your proposed solution of sticking to the "core" genre story strikes me as a good idea for groups that are new...but I also find that as I become more confident as a player and GM, I want (in either capacity) more possibilities. Maybe a little mix and match with other genres. Maybe a reworking of some other popular media material into the game. Maybe something wholly original, or something we develop between us there at the table.These departures from genre norms DO have increased risk of falling flat...but when they work, there's so much to be gained as well.</blockquote>

Verification